Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
 Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 19:47 |
 
|
| uzkulak wrote: | | 8 or 9 guys with str5 and guard, plus a couple of side step / diving tackle / dirty player gobbos. |
Could you please enlighten us and provide links to ogres with "a couple of side step / diving tackle / dirty player gobbos"? |
|
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 19:50 |
|
| Wraith wrote: | It depends on the match-up. Dwarves have troll-slayers and tons of block/guard (oh and DP). Chaos have 4 CWs, horns all around and a BG (oh and DP). Orcs have 4 BoBs and a BG (oh and DP). Elves can dodge away and wait for a key BH roll to fail before attacking (oh and DP). Etc, etc, etc...
Also, saying that ogres can make 2dbs with impunity is a bit false... they have a 1 in 6 chance of making a 0db block and losing their TZ. |
I have bolded the important part. So elves vs ogres have to dodge for their life and have to wait for an event that might not happen in the game. How fun is that to play?
Oh.. and an elf dodging has also a 1 in 6 (at best - the other coach has the option to make these odds worse) chance of losing his tacklezone. Only difference here is, that the ogre fail causes no turnover, can`t injure the ogre and that the ogre can block next turn without blitzing. Yeah.. life is really tough on the ogres. |
|
|
uzkulak
Joined: Mar 30, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 20:00 |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 20:09 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Then tell me, why ogres are THAT MUCH MORE popular than the other 3 fun races? |
Easily explained:
It's extremely easy to find games with the other 3 fun races in [R] whereas it's rather difficult with ogres. On top of that, ogres appear to be better suited for the bashy [B]-environment. |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 20:12 |
|
Intersting that 2 teams have very bad record, whilst the only team to scrape past a 50% win rate has a 178 CR |
|
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 20:13 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Then tell me, why ogres are THAT MUCH MORE popular than the other 3 fun races? If the intention of a coach is to play something challenging, that includes alot of mayhem and chaos, then ogres should be picked just as often as vamps and less often than gobbos and flings (which are the archetypus of the whole fun/mayhem/challenge concept). Yet we see ogres having 50% more teams in the stats, than the other 3 fun races combined. The only difference is, that ogres are top level damage dealers and are quite tough. So looking at the numbers, out of the 144 ogre teams, maybe 44 teams exist, because their coach wanted a non-serious roster to have abit of fun. Which leaves 100 teams (=vast majority) to be picked because with abit of luck, they can cause this squish sound really often! |
As a fan of the "fun" races (especially ogres), I feel qualified to answer this one.
Of the 4 not-so-serious teams, ogres are the only ones that bash well and the most viable at high TR. You can get attached to the players (the non-gobbos at least) because with high av and ST, they are less likely to be mangled in their first few games. Once you get a solid core of ogres and your rerolls sorted out, they are good to go for a long while without needing too many "recovery" games.
In summary, the 4 not-so-serious races:
-Halflings: Fun at low TR. Fairly competitive, will be brutalized horrifically on a regular basis by anything with Tackle/MB
-Goblins: Low-TR maniacs. They need the weapons to be dangerous, IMO, but I retired my goblins after getting bored beating up low-TR teams with chainsaws.
-Vampires: Developed vampires are fairly effective, but it takes a long time to get them there. I entered my vampires in the FC.
-Ogres: My favorite (and within a game or two of my most played) race. They are big dopey lugs who knock some heads and try to keep it together long enough to win a game. TTM (with rerolls) is fun, and works more than most people seem to expect.
For uzkulak:
Ogres with DP and DT/SS
Also, not all ogres are losers:
Box Ogres with winning record after 15 games (maybe not impressive, but they're not just bash'n'lose) |
|
|
DukeTyrion
Joined: Feb 18, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 20:14 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Wraith wrote: | It depends on the match-up. Dwarves have troll-slayers and tons of block/guard (oh and DP). Chaos have 4 CWs, horns all around and a BG (oh and DP). Orcs have 4 BoBs and a BG (oh and DP). Elves can dodge away and wait for a key BH roll to fail before attacking (oh and DP). Etc, etc, etc...
Also, saying that ogres can make 2dbs with impunity is a bit false... they have a 1 in 6 chance of making a 0db block and losing their TZ. |
I have bolded the important part. So elves vs ogres have to dodge for their life and have to wait for an event that might not happen in the game. How fun is that to play?
Oh.. and an elf dodging has also a 1 in 6 (at best - the other coach has the option to make these odds worse) chance of losing his tacklezone. Only difference here is, that the ogre fail causes no turnover, can`t injure the ogre and that the ogre can block next turn without blitzing. Yeah.. life is really tough on the ogres. |
That's not strictly true though, alot of Elves get dodge very early, so often the dodge rate for alot of elves can be 35/36.
Anyway, the bigger question is around the win / loss rate. Dwarves are a bad design, Khemri are a bad design, but does Ogres TS mean they win too many games? That i doubt. |
|
|
Wraith
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 20:17 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | I have bolded the important part. So elves vs ogres have to dodge for their life and have to wait for an event that might not happen in the game. How fun is that to play?
Oh.. and an elf dodging has also a 1 in 6 (at best - the other coach has the option to make these odds worse) chance of losing his tacklezone. Only difference here is, that the ogre fail causes no turnover, can`t injure the ogre and that the ogre can block next turn without blitzing. Yeah.. life is really tough on the ogres. |
That's a pretty standard elf tactic, no? Or are you implying that they play other bashers all that much differently than ogres? Keeping out of harm's way until they have an opportunity to pounce, seems pretty standard for elf vs basher to me. The opportunities just take different shapes...
Ogres have it pretty bad, barring lucky skill rolls or pretty good dice during a game. Ogres are a very poor roster that is only good at out-muscling opposing teams, other than that they lack in many areas. |
_________________
Insanity, is merely the lack of fear... to act on your deepest, darkest thoughts. |
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 20:17 |
|
If these are the first 3 when it comes to fouls (rolling tons of early doubles for goblins certainly helps), why would you think there are stronger examples? Where is the logic behind that assumption? |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 20:19 |
|
now, those teams are pretty good examples of what i was talking about earlier, i.e. major durability problems.
these are the teams tr/ts - ratios + ff:
1. 263/193 + ff5
2. 276/190 + ff10
3. 228/181 + ff12
when u look at the average gold-winnings they've gotten over the last 10 games its:
1. 18000
2. 11000 (!)
3. 43000
...except for the last, who's got pretty decent ff for its tr/ts-level its just a matter of time before they hit a bad run, loose 2 or 3 Ogres (likely their good ones) and start over rebuilding like an Elf-team or alternatively are retired.
it's not all that easy as many non-Ogre coaches seem to think 
...i assume that's also the reason why 2 of those 3 teams (that *you* picked) still hold on to nigglers, even though they haven't even rolled a single double or stat-upgrade - with those tr/ts - ratios they'll be handing out at least 2..3 HCs / match on average
...and let me tell you: those are rather above-average Ogre-teams in my eyes |
|
|
runreallyfast
Joined: Sep 08, 2006
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 20:21 |
|
My opinion here is that the worst problem here is that the TS for short handed teams is often much too high. A fair amount of TS is usually a result of rerolls, and these are, I think, generally valued correctly for a full-strength team. On a 14 player skaven team, with, say, 3 rerolls already, 2 more rerolls are probably more valuable than two more rookie skaven (say a thrower and a linerat) would be. And the TS formula does indeed say that.
But on an 8 player skaven team, you would much rather have the players. I am sure I would do better playing with 12 skaven and 1 reroll than 8 skaven and 5 rerolls, or, to take the argument to the logical extreme, 4 skaven and 8 rerolls. I would suggest that it might be better to multiply the 'static' part of TS by the # of players available to some factor (perhaps as high as squared?) and then divide by 11 to the same factor. Additionally, I would want to modify that for both the lower AV teams and the higher AG teams - counting an AV 7 player as being, perhaps, only .9 of a player for this calculation, but a 4 AG player as being a bit more.
This would mean that
a team of 12 skaven linemen and 2 rerolls would have a TS of 5.5*12 + 12*(10.8^2/11^2) = 77.6 (plus TS for FF and an apothecary, if present)
A team of 10 skaven linemen and 4 rerolls would have a TS of 5.5*10 + 24*(9^2/11^2) = 71.1
A team of 8 skaven linemen and 6 rerolls would have a TS of 5.5*8+36*(7.2^2/11^2) = 59.4
A team of 6 skaven linemen and 8 rerolls would have a TS of 5.5*6+48*(5.4^2/11^2) = 44.6
I think that most people would agree that 12 linemen with two rerolls would beat 6 linemen with 8 rerolls nearly every time. Rerolls are great, but they don't help much when you need to dodge every time you want to get a 1 dice block.
Just for reference, the current TS for those rosters would be, if I understand correctly:
a team of 12 skaven linemen and 2 rerolls would have a TS of 5.5*12*.99 + 12 = 77.3
A team of 10 skaven linemen and 4 rerolls would have a TS of 5.5*10*.97 + 24 = 77.3
A team of 8 skaven linemen and 6 rerolls would have a TS of 5.5*8*.95 + 36 = 77.8
A team of 6 skaven linemen and 8 rerolls would have a TS of 5.5*6*.93 + 48 = 78.7
So my answer would be that the basic problem is that FUMBBL is generally pretty bad at picking even matchups for recovery games.
I could have picked an example where my team had 30 FF, 8 chaos rerolls, an apothecary, a wizard, and no players available for the game at all. The current TS formula would say that I had a TS of about 76.
It has no chance of beating anyone. The formula really ought to reflect that.
The problem is worse against ogres, who won't just beat you, but who will tend to get matchups against you more often (owing to a TR/TS ratio that tends to mimic a battered team under the TS formula the site uses) and leave you even shorter-handed for next game. But I think it's a general problem. |
|
|
Fela
Joined: Dec 27, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 22:09 |
|
| Thomcat wrote: | | Frankenstein wrote: | So much thread just because Orc Average lost one game against the much more experienced ogre-grandmaster Gary_Gygax.
So much fael, Fale, don't even know where to start.
If something is in dire need of higher TS then that would be your AV9 orcs. |
SPOT ON.
Have just replayed the game - How can anyone WHINE about loosing to ogres when that someone cannot even be bothered to attack the Ogres Goblins with the ball?
Actually he did not attack the goblins AT all (unless they where in the way) - so all he ever did to one goblin (and only 1) was to get it ko´ed.
On top of this - how is the "ogres only play injured teams" valid here ??
He starts out with 12 orcs (including 1 goblin) |
Maybe you should view the replay again and open your eyes this time? Every single thing you 'observed' is plain wrong, I 3d blitzed one of the (2!) goblins whenever possible, downed them quite a few times as well, but they simply didn't want to leave the field.
But that's beside the point, this is not about a single match decided by sheer luck.
Every single time I met Ogres in the box it was no fun at all, because as CL so eloquently explained, playing Ogres is not about skill. The single deciding factor in an Ogre match is the Ogre player's luck - everything else pales in comparison.
And the last paragraph of runreallyfast's post sums up nicely why I have a problem with ANYONE being forced to play them due to being beat up already. |
|
|
XtremeXwing
Joined: Dec 03, 2004
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 22:34 |
|
I cant believe my first post hasnt already answered the question in hand. Lock this thread and ....
Move Along |
|
|
Frankenstein
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 22:43 |
|
| Fela wrote: | | [...] playing Ogres is not about skill. [...] |
There should be a ruling that dedicated orc coaches are not allowed to make this statement.  |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Dec 23, 2009 - 23:16 |
|
i got 2 nice bottles of south african grand classique 2005 merlot from a business partner tonight for christmas
i might not be able to resist opening them just now, only thing that keeps me from doing that is the wine-
scandal that's been on the media a few weeks ago which concerned wineyards from australia as well as south africa  |
|
|
|
|
| |
Draft League Expansi...
Search
